Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to call the attention of the Senate to the most-underreported story of the year: the continuing success of our troops in Iraq. In particular, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an article by the American Enterprise Institute's Fred Kagan in this week's Weekly Standard, which articulately speaks to the magnitude of the change in direction that has taken place in Iraq.

The article reports how our soldiers and marines turned an imminent victory for al-Qaida in Iraq into a humiliating defeat for them and thereby created an opportunity for further progress not only in Iraq but also in the global struggle against terror. In the past 5 months we have seen stunning results from the Petraeus strategy: terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent; car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent; casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent; and, violence during the just-completed season of Ramadan-- traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks was the lowest in 3 years.

However, Mr. President, winning a battle is not the same as winning a war. Our commanders and soldiers are continuing the fight to ensure that al-Qaida does not recover even as they turn their attention to the next battle: the fight against Shia militias sponsored by Iran.

What's more, these victories are not irreversible. Al-Qaida is a resourceful organization. If we let up, they can still recover. That is why our strategy on the ground must be based on the advice and experience of our generals and not the political necessities of the majority party here in Washington. We must resist politically-motivated maneuvering, whether it be in the form of artificial timelines for withdrawal or efforts to have politicians in Congress change the mission that has been delivering results.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached article be printed in the Record.

Might I just inquire now, would we be beginning the Republican time for morning business?

I understand we have permission to proceed, and I thank the majority for that and would note that when speakers come on their side, then they would be entitled to their time.

Mr. President, I wish to urge the swift confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. It has been 6 weeks now, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has not even taken up the nomination. It is past time to fill this vacancy.

There is no question this nominee is qualified to serve. I don't need to recite his qualifications. They were mentioned by many Members at Judge Mukasey's nomination hearing.

The distinguished majority leader said:

Judge Mukasey has strong professional credentials and a

reputation for independence. A man who spent 18 years on the

Federal bench surely understands the importance of checks and

balances and knows how to say no to the President when he

oversteps the Constitution.

There is no question, the Nation would be well served by Judge Mukasey's confirmation. Indeed, in recommending Judge Mukasey to serve on the Supreme Court, Senator Schumer noted that Judge Mukasey, and the others he recommended:

. . . were legally excellent, ideologically moderate,

within the mainstream, and have demonstrated a commitment to

the rule of law.

Surely, if a man is qualified and independent enough to be on the Supreme Court, we should have far fewer concerns when nominating him to serve the remaining time of about 1 year as Attorney General.

It seems to me that what this debate boils down to is politics. Some Members want more information about his views. I would note that he testified for 2 full days and has answered nearly 500 written questions. The initial reaction from many of my Democratic colleagues was that he was extremely forthcoming and they were pleased with his candidness. But for some Senators, apparently this is not enough. It almost seems to me as if some of my colleagues are willing to hold this nomination hostage until he gives them exactly the answers they want, even when he is unable as a legal matter to do that.

Let me explain why. Judge Mukasey has not been briefed on classified programs, and he will not be briefed on classified programs until he becomes the Attorney General, but some of my colleagues now seem to be saying he should have to make pronouncements about the legalities of those programs even when he doesn't know their details--can't know their details. How is this independent?

I would suggest this: My colleagues don't want an Attorney General who is independent; they want an Attorney General who will kowtow to their views and make pronouncements over

issues on which he is not legally allowed to opine. That is, of course, the opposite of independence.

Since the beginning of this Congress, Democratic Senators have repeatedly called for new leadership at the Department of Justice. They have said the work of the Department is too important to delay confirmation of a new Attorney General. Well, now is the time for them to act.

Before the nomination, Senator Schumer said:

Let me say, if the President were to nominate somebody,

albeit a conservative, but somebody who put the rule of law

first, someone like a Mike Mukasey, my guess is that they

would get through the Senate very, very quickly.

Well, my colleague would have guessed wrong. It hasn't been quick. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not moved quickly, and this is all the worse because the average amount of time between nomination and confirmation of the last nine Attorneys General has been 21 days. Already Judge Mukasey has been pending for about twice that period of time--6 weeks--longer than any Attorney General nominee in 20 years. If these delays continue, obviously new records are sure to be broken.

The bottom line here is that President Bush has nominated a distinguished and nonpolitical candidate to be the next Attorney General. The Senate should reciprocate by using the confirmation process not to settle old scores or to politicize the nomination. Independence has to mean something. We do not want an Attorney General who refuses to give his honest legal opinions to the President, and we don't want one who is forced to make commitments to the Senate that are not grounded in facts or law.

The Department of Justice needs an Attorney General with the foresight and experience to resolve the issues the Nation's top law enforcement agency faces and to tackle the difficult challenges especially presented in a post- 9/11 world. The qualities and background of Judge Michael Mukasey, combined with his extensive experience in national security and terrorism cases, commend him to serve as Attorney General in these challenging times. It is important for the Senate to move on with this important business of the Nation so that Judge Mukasey can be voted on by the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring the attention of the Senate to a provision of the fiscal year 08 Defense Authorization Act, now in conference. Section 3122 of the bill undermines the Senate's position on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, without the benefit of neither the historical treaty consideration process nor a senous policy debate.

It has been 9 years since the CTBT was the subject of any deliberation by the Senate, which ultimately concluded that its ratification was not in the Nation's interests. There were numerous objections that proved determinative then and remain true today.

First, the U.S. deterrent cannot be maintained without testing. U.S. nuclear weapons have the highest average age of any in the world. Some, like the W-76 warhead, the backbone of the submarine-based component of our nuclear triad, date back to 1966, making them more than four times as old as the average American car.

Given the high average age, now at its highest point in the six decade history of nuclear weapons, they require substantial, ongoing modification if they are to be maintained as a viable deterrent. As the then-Director of Sandia National Laboratories, Dr. C. Paul Robinson, testified to the Senate, ``To forego validation through testing is, in short, to live with uncertainty.'' We cannot afford uncertainty when it comes to the reliability, safety, and credibility of our most important weaponry.

Some believe that the reliable replacement warhead, RRW, can be developed and introduced without underground testing. Even if that judgment proves correct, it will be many years before we no longer need to rely on the older designs in the current arsenal for deterrence. As the administration noted in a recent statement by Secretaries Bodman, Gates, and Rice, ``delays on RRW also raise the prospect of having to return to underground nuclear testing to certify existing weapons.'' But, underground testing would be an option permanently denied to the United States through ratification of CTBT as section 3122 endorses.

This permanent loss of the testing option would be even more problematic if we need to continue to rely on these aging designs for decades more as we would if current plans, including those passed by the House and proposed in the Senate, that eliminate RRW funding are not rejected.

Further, the cuts proposed to RRW compound the impact of current plans to cut more than $500 million in funding for the nuclear weapons complex that supports, maintains, and refurbishes the weapons currently in the complex. These proposed cuts to RRW and the nuclear weapons complex have been rejected by individuals of great authority, including Secretaries Kissinger and Schultz, and Dr. Sidney Drell.

The second reason the Senate rejected the treaty in 1999, and would do so again today, is that the treaty is not verifiable. Militarily significant covert nuclear testing can--and almost certainly will--be conducted at low yields or in other ways aimed at masking the force of an explosion.

Assistant Secretary Paula DeSutter of the State Department's Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation recently made this point. She stated that the International Monitoring System set up to monitor compliance with CTBT is ``aimed to detect detonations over 1 kiloton; smaller or concealed detonations are less likely to be identified. Evasion techniques can easily reduce the signature of a nuclear explosion by factors of 50 or 100.''

Third, CTBT's unverifiability means a ban will not have uniform effects.

Our inability under CTBT to monitor the state of foreign nuclear weapons programs effectively means that hostile or potentially hostile countries will be able to modernize their weapons even as the U.S. arsenal steadily degrades. As a result, the long-term effect of CTBT accession would translate into the inevitable, if gradual, unilateral disarmament of our Nation's deterrent.

Fourth, CTBT would damage the struggle against proliferation. On the one hand, the inherent unverifiability of the CTBT can be expected to encourage rogue state regimes to believe they could pursue nuclear weapons programs with impunity. On the other, the attendant erosion of our deterrent would mean that allied countries--notably, Japan, Taiwan and perhaps South Korea--that currently rely on the U.S. deterrent ``umbrella'' would be more likely to develop their own nuclear weapons.

As Dr. James Schlesinger remarked in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in 1999, ``the chief barrier to proliferation in these last 55 years since Hiroshima has been confidence in the protection offered by the American deterrent. It is the reason, quite simply, that nations like [South] Korea or Japan, or more complicated, in the case of Germany, have not sought nuclear weapons. Because of the NATO agreement, because of the Japan Treaty, because of our agreements with the Koreans, they have not felt the necessity of taking that final plunge. As confidence on their part in the U.S. deterrent wanes over a period of . . . years, what is the likelihood that those nations will refrain from seeking nuclear weapons? I think that it is very modest.''

Finally, the Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999 because it realized that the Stockpile Stewardship Program, SSP, is a ``crap-shoot,'' as Troy Wade, a retired Department of Energy nuclear scientist, referred to it in his testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1999. It remains doubtful whether the SSP, supported by CTBT advocates as a substitute for nuclear testing, can adequately meet the maintenance and refurbishment needs of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As a result, it will become ever more likely that dangerous anomalies in our weapons will pass unnoticed.

Despite these abiding concerns and the Senate vote in 1999, the 2008 Defense authorization bill would put the Senate on record in support of CTBT's ratification without hearings or debate. How can new Senators-- 37 since 1999--be expected to have reached such a conclusion?

Preordaining the ratification of a treaty, as is done in section 3122 of this bill, does a disservice to the Senate's history of thoughtful consideration of treaties proposed for ratification, especially when the treaties were on issues with the gravity of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

I would be remiss if I didn't reference the comments of Secretary of State Rice in a recent letter. She stated that the administration does not support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and ``does not intend to seek Senate advice and consent to its ratification.''

I also call the attention of the Senate to the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill which states strong opposition to section 3122 due to its dangerous implications for the reliability of our nuclear deterrent.

Mr. President, I note that these are not simply the concerns of this Senator. The letter I will ask to have printed in the Congressional Record makes clear that 40 of my fellow Senators share many of these concerns about the CTBT and the unprecedented approach taken by this bill. My colleagues recognize as I do that since the reasons for the rejection of this treaty in 1999 have not changed, neither should the Senate's position.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I just referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3321, which I believe is at the desk and was filed by Senator Coburn. He and I are cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I can describe the amendment very briefly. Here is the context in which Senator Coburn and I offer this amendment.

This Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides just under $150 billion in total discretionary spending. I believe it is $149.2 billion. This is about $8.95 billion over the President's recommendation. That is well over 6 percent in excess of what the President recommended.

With this kind of excessive spending in the bill, it is important for Congress to address the use of taxpayer dollars within this bill to ensure that anything that is not a critical governmental function is prioritized, and for those things that are not critical, that we not spend money on them.

Now, this bill contains a $1 million earmark for a museum located at the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY--the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival. The museum, which is scheduled to open in 2008, apparently will house exhibits on the Woodstock Festival and the 1960s in which it occurred. According to the museum's Web site--I am quoting now--

Through dramatic imagery, audio-visual technology and

immersive interactives, this exhibition tells the story of

the 1969 [Woodstock] festival and its significance in a time

of unrest and change, concluding with the myth, reality, and

impact of the Woodstock Festival today.

Our amendment is very simple. We simply strike that $1 million earmark.

For those who thought the Woodstock Festival was a neat thing and something that needs to be commemorated in American history, it is happening. It does not need the Federal Government, the taxpayers in my State and others, to subsidize that museum.

The Gerry Foundation, which is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization, oversees the Bethel Center, and it reported an adjusted net income of $7.7 million, investment income of more than $24 million, and total net assets of over $150 million at the end of 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. So why are we asking for $1 million to be earmarked out of this particular bill, the Labor-HHS bill, for the funding of this particular museum? As I said, our amendment would eliminate the earmark for this Woodstock museum, and it would transfer the funding to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program-- something that is relevant to the Labor-HHS bill.

The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program provides funding to States to meet their most pressing maternal and child health needs, encouraging the development of community-based networks for both private and public health care services and programs designed to meet the health needs of pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, and adolescents. This is what this bill is supposed to be about.

We have had a lot of debate recently about protecting children's health. It seems to me if that is something we are concerned about, we could use this $1 million for children's health rather than helping to pay the expenses of an already very well-funded museum to celebrate the festival at Woodstock.

The amendment basically asks some questions about our priorities as Members of Congress, stewards of taxpayer dollars. Remember, the money has not grown on trees. It has been collected from hard-working families who expect us to put it to good use. They are frustrated about wasteful Washington spending. They criticize us every day for the priorities we set. It seems to me we do have to ask questions such as whether it is the will of this body to fund an earmark for a museum celebrating a weekend-long party that occurred 38 years ago or funding child health.

The American people, as I said, are sick and tired of the kind of spending that this particular kind of earmark represents. They see us as a government that is not accountable to them, that is out of touch with their needs and realities in trying to provide for their own families, and they then send what the Government needs by way of taxes. They are not against paying taxes, but they do not want us to waste their money.

It is beyond me how, with an entity as well funded as the Gerry Foundation, the Government would have to then take taxpayer money and fund this particular museum to the tune of $1 million. It is clearly not a high priority. It is clearly not needed. It is not critical to our future. It may be a nice thing for some people to visit to relive their memories of the good old days, but, frankly, it is a handout from taxpayers to a foundation that otherwise has plenty of money to commemorate this particular event.

I close by noting that recently there was a festival at the Bethel site, the site of Woodstock, on August 11 of this year. They hosted an event called the ``HIPPIEFEST,'' with tickets priced up to $60 a person. Here is how it was advertised:

Return to the flower-powered days of the 1960's with our

oh-so-hippie line-up of truly talented artists.

The center's advertisement for the concert further states:

[G]ather your groovy beads and we'll see you on the lawn

for a trip down memory lane.

Well, the trip down memory lane may be fine for folks. I suggest if they want to participate in that, they can pay the admission price. If a rich entrepreneur in New York wishes to fund the creation of this museum, as he has done, he obviously has plenty of money to do it, as I indicated. It is not something American taxpayers should pay for.

I will conclude by saying this: The reason why this Congress has a lower approval rating than the President of the United States--the lowest approval rating in its history, according to the public opinion surveys--is because they do not trust us to do the right thing. They believe we are wasteful stewards of their money. We have to start somewhere in convincing them that we are serious about the business they want us to conduct, that we can set priorities, and that we are not going to continue to waste their money.

How can we, with a straight face, argue to them that we are not wasting their hard-earned, taxpayer money when we take $1 million of it to spend on a memorial or a museum for a party, as I said, that occurred 38 years ago, and which is already plenty adequately funded? It makes no sense at all.

I urge my colleagues, when this comes up for a vote, let's at least demonstrate in a symbolic way, at a minimum, that we are serious about not wasting their money. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, let me return the compliment to our colleague from New York. Nobody is questioning anybody's beliefs. He certainly made that point, and we make the same point. In Senator Schumer, the citizens of New York have a very worthy and persuasive advocate. I say this with no disrespect. He could literally make the sow's ear into a silk purse, which I think is what is being done with respect to this particular program. He fights for his constituents' interests and beliefs. But I say thank you.

If this is a jobs program, and that is the justification for it, I think we need to take a look at this again. I am informed that the unemployment rate in Sullivan County is 4.1 percent, contrasted with 4.6 percent nationwide.

Our colleague talked about the counties in northwest Arizona. He mentioned the Grand Canyon. One of the counties next to the Grand Canyon incorporates the Navajo Indian Reservation.

I think about Tuba City. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Indian Reservation is about 40 percent as opposed to a little over 4 percent in Sullivan County, NY. We could use a lot of jobs programs. We can use other programs more than that. I cannot get money for a roof on the Tuba City jail which leaks. There are parts of Arizona where it actually rains, and on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Tuba City, AZ, it rains.

I went up there on a Saturday night about 6 months ago. Hope MacDonald said: You need to come up, we have to get a new jail; this thing is falling apart. I walked in and, yes, it is falling apart. It happened to be raining and, yes, the roof leaks.

There are huge needs on these Indian reservations in poor counties of Arizona. There are a lot of events we can commemorate on the Navajo Reservation in terms of a museum that would be worthwhile for everybody in this country to visit. There is a rich, long, wonderful history there. But I don't think we should have an earmark in the Health and Human Services bill to create a museum as a jobs program. If we want to do that, let's focus on the real need.

I don't know how many jobs this would create or what the cost-benefit ratio of the expenditure of this money is for job creation, but there surely has to be a better way to do it than creating a museum. If we are prioritizing, I can tell you areas in Arizona that are far greater in terms of unemployment and could use the money in much more direct ways to benefit the citizens of the State.

The second point that our colleague from New York made--I will stand guilty with respect to Senator Schumer's charge, which is that I don't believe we should always raise taxes when we cut taxes. That is what this so-called pay-go rule is all about. It is supposed to work this way. You either cut spending or you raise taxes.

We had a Finance Committee meeting, I believe it was yesterday, an informal meeting. I asked my colleagues, because it was all about raising taxes: Does anybody here have an idea about how we could cut spending in order to pay for this? Dead silence. Not a one. I know my colleague from Oklahoma has lots of good ideas about how to cut spending, but nobody in the Finance Committee was willing to put forth an idea of cutting spending. No, it had to be to raise taxes.

What I am curious about is whoever decided that the amount of revenue the Federal Government collects today is exactly the amount of revenue it has to collect from now into the future so that if we are ever going to reduce taxes on hard-working Americans, we have to raise their taxes in some other area so the Government can still collect the same amount of money?

It is interesting, we collect about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product in taxes today. We could prevent any of the existing tax rates from increasing--take the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--and eliminate AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we would still be collecting 18 percent of our gross domestic product in taxes. Isn't that enough?

If we don't do these things, we will be over 20 percent. The historic 40-year average is 18.2 percent. Clearly, we don't have to keep raising taxes on Americans. That is why some of us believe, when we try to help people by cutting taxes, we ought to leave well enough alone and not raise taxes somewhere else so we can keep the Government whole. The object is not to make sure the Government always has the same amount of money. It is to try to help the people who pay the taxes. They are the ones who generate the jobs.

If we are talking about unemployment, let's talk about who creates the jobs. It is mostly small businesses. So if we help small businesses by not raising their taxes, they can create the jobs and that creates wealth and, by the way, it produces more income tax revenue to the Federal Government.

I conclude by saying I plead guilty to not wanting to raise taxes every time I am in favor of cutting taxes, but that debate is irrelevant to the question before us today, which is simply, as a symbolic measure, can we at least find $1 million in this multibillion- dollar bill that we can all agree could better be spent on something else? Can we set some priorities once and for all?

This Woodstock museum, maybe it is a good idea--I am not so sold on it--but if it is a great job creator, and it is pretty clear the people in New York have concluded that, they have the money to fund a museum. They do not have to rely on the taxpayers in my State or other States to fund a museum.

I hope my colleagues agree that in setting priorities, we can strike this one earmark from this bill.

Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $1 million in the bill, an earmark that would create a Woodstock museum celebrating the Woodstock Festival in northern New York 38 years ago.

Now, some of you may believe it would be neat to celebrate Woodstock again and to do so with a museum. To the extent you believe that, there is a private foundation as well as money available from the State of New York that provides the funding.

To the extent one would argue it is only $1 million, and therefore symbolic, the answer to that is, yes, it is, but I think the American people want us to begin to make some votes that demonstrate we care about setting priorities. Funding a Woodstock museum in New York is not a priority above the funds that would help the children and the pregnant women to whom this $1 million would otherwise go.

As to jobs, every one of us could spend $1 million in our States to help create jobs. But to justify this on the basis of it being a job- creation program goes too far. The unemployment rate in this county, I am told, is less than the average nationwide.

So let's strike a blow for priorities. Let the American taxpayer know we are willing to at least start somewhere to save their money and not waste it on the Woodstock museum.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up an amendment which I will then later withdraw.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3356.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, was designed to provide funds to low-income individuals who cannot cover rising home energy prices. The program does not discriminate between cold and hot weather States. However, upon implementation, cold weather States have unfairly received the majority of the LIHEAP funds.

My amendment eliminates the discretionary nature in which the funds are disbursed and frees up money and allocates it on a nondiscretionary basis.

Before I go into specifics of my amendment, I would first like to discuss how Arizona is affected by LIHEAP funds. This summer, record level temperatures have devastated the State. Phoenix set a record with 32 days of temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. In August alone, Phoenix experienced 9 days of temperatures of 110 degrees or above. The State of Arizona's average temperature for August 2007 was 105.8 degrees. It was the second hottest summer on record in Arizona and the Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service reached peak demand for energy service. Just imagine the cost to the people of Arizona to cool their homes during such extreme heat. Therefore, LIHEAP funds are crucial to many Arizonans who cannot meet their energy costs alone.

Let me now turn to the way in which LIHEAP funds are distributed. Currently, LIHEAP funding is divided between two pots of money. The first pot is distributed based on a tiered funding formula, while the second pot of money is deemed a contingency fund distributed based on ``emergencies.'' Historically, the contingency fund is overwhelmingly distributed to cold weather States. My amendment would eliminate the bias inherent in the contingency fund distribution and allocate all LIHEAP money to the funding formula account that is more equitably distributed to all 50 States. I would implore my colleagues to think of all Americans when considering my amendment, and vote to provide a more equitable distribution of LIHEAP funds.

Amendment No. 3356 withdrawn

Madam President, having spoken to the manager of the bill, and appreciating the fact that the amendment was offered too late in the process, probably, to receive the consideration it deserves, we will work on this at a later date. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, on rollcall Vote No. 367 I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, this amendment provides $23 million in funding to the FBI for purposes of clearing its backlog of untested DNA evidence. This backlog consists of DNA evidence from untested rape kits, other untested crime-scene evidence, and samples collected from criminal offenders. The amounts provided by this amendment are the minimum amount that the FBI would need in order to be able to clear its current backlog of untested DNA evidence.

Two recent articles in USA Today highlight the nature of this problem and why it matters. The first news story--published just last month-- indicates that FBI's backlog of untested DNA evidence has grown to over 200,000 samples. As USA Today notes, past experience testing DNA samples indicates that testing the current backlog would probably solve over 3,000 rapes, murders, and other serious crimes.

Allow me to repeat that statistic: according to USA Today, testing the current backlog of DNA evidence is expected to solve over 3,000 cold cases--violent crimes and other serious offenses for which no perpetrator currently has been identified. Obviously, solving these crimes would bring relief to thousands of crime victims and their families. By identifying these criminal offenders and leading to their prosecution and incarceration, testing the DNA backlog would undoubtedly prevent many future offenses as well. But first we have to appropriate the funds to test that backlog.

Another recent article in USA Today describes the costs imposed by not promptly testing DNA evidence. This article begins as follows:

Under Maryland law, Raymont Hopewell should have had his

DNA taken after he was sentenced for selling $20 worth of

cocaine in April 2004.

But the state police, who lacked sufficient technicians,

never got around to it. So no one knew that Hopewell's DNA

matched a pair of unsolved rape/murders on the national DNA

database. He served a few months in a halfway house and went

on to commit three more murders, one rape and four assaults

before being caught in September 2005. Then, a DNA test was

performed.

Hopewell, now 36, pleaded guilty to all five murders,

including three that a DNA match could have prevented. He was

sentenced to four consecutive life terms last year.

That is the cost of not promptly testing DNA evidence. The failure to test evidence in just this one case allowed the commission of three murders and one rape that clearly could have been prevented. The USA Today story goes on to note that:

cases in which such missed DNA matches led to further crimes

have begun to ``pop up increasingly'' as test backlogs grow,

[according to Lisa Hurst, a DNA expert].

Cases similar to the Maryland case have been reported in

California, Ohio, Illinois and elsewhere in the past four

years. ``You have to believe there are a whole lot more than

what gets reported,'' Hurst says. ``This is not something

that people want to talk about. It's much worse than just an

embarrassment.''

If we want the current Federal DNA backlog to be tested, we must provide FBI with this money. There are not a lot of things that the Federal Government can do that will directly prevent violent crimes, but this is one of them. I am pleased that the Senate will adopt my amendment and allow the FBI to promptly test its current evidence backlog, before another preventable rape or murder is committed.

I ask unanimous consent to have the following articles appearing in USA Today printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wished to, first of all, echo the comments of my colleague from Utah. Fred Kagan is an expert, and what he had to say in that report and in his subsequent summaries of it is something all our colleagues should be familiar with because he makes the very clear point that, as this mission is working, right now is not the time to change the mission and go back to what it was prior to General Petraeus's arrival on the scene.

Yet we still have Members of this body and the other body trying to undercut the Petraeus plan in one way or another. The most recent effort to do this is one which is especially distressing. Let me give a little bit of background.

First, I wish to note that our Democratic colleagues have not taken very long to reestablish their reputation--well deserved--as the tax- and-spend party, as my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier. Now that the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress, the agenda is very clear. But yesterday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee went a step too far because he proposed a new tax on every American. This one, ostensibly, to fund the war.

Now, there are a lot of different excuses for raising taxes, as my colleague from Texas pointed out a while ago, but I don't think we need a new tax. If we did, our Democratic colleagues would not be proposing $23 billion in more spending than the President proposed in his budget. In other words, if a lack of revenue is the problem, then let us not keep spending more than has been proposed in the budget. The tax-and- spend priorities of the Democratic majority are very clear.

No, the real reason for Chairman Obey's plan to raise more taxes is to

change our strategy in Iraq, and that is very clear from his own comments. Along with the tax he proposed, in fact, he announced he would not allow his committee to move forward with the bill the President has requested to fund the troops in Iraq.

This is not the Defense authorization or Defense appropriations bill, which funds the Pentagon and all the military activities over the course of next year. No, this is the money for the troops who are fighting right now in Iraq. As I said, the chairman made it very clear that was precisely what he intended. In fact, quoting from a Wall Street Journal article today, he said:

Choosing not to move legislation is our strongest card at

this point.

Well, this is not a card game, and you shouldn't be playing with the lives of our troops by cutting off their funding while they are out in the field. If you wish to make a policy point that we should change our strategy in Iraq, change our mission, there are ways to do it without cutting off the funds while the troops are out there trying to perform the mission we have sent them to perform.

I thought the comment of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, as reported in the Washington Times in a story this morning, was charitable and interesting.

Senator Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, said Mr.

Obey's threat to block war funds was pretty gutsy. But I

don't see how it would work. In the end, you have to feed the

soldiers.

That is the point. You can cut back Pentagon funding, you can try to pass resolutions that call for a change in strategy, but at the end of the day, you have to feed the soldiers. You can't refuse to send the money to Iraq while the troops are there or you are literally pulling out the rug from under the troops.

My colleague, Senator Graham from South Carolina, put it this way:

The plan to starve the troops of funds would be cheered by

America's enemies. This would be a blessing to al-Qaida,

which is getting its brains beat out in Iraq.

I remember when Bob Dole ran for the Presidency, and he was trying to make some pretty important points and people didn't appear to be listening to him. At one point, he said: Where is the outrage? And that is the question I ask here. Where is the outrage of pulling the rug out from under our troops while they are in theater trying to do what we have sent them there to do?

This is not just bad policy, it represents a failure to support the troops. Everybody around here says: Well, we all support the troops, we disagree with the policy of being in Iraq. Now we have come to the point where we are going to try to change that policy by not supporting the troops? I don't think this is good policy. I don't think it is fair to the troops whom we have sent into harm's way, and it is consistent, as I said before, with this whole tax-and-spend ideology.

Try to change policy by withdrawing support for the troops but raise taxes on the American taxpayer? It makes no sense at all, unless you put it in the context with where the Democratic leadership has been going now for some time with respect to the Iraq war. Let me go back a little and quote from an article yesterday in the Associated Press.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months,

Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when

Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

Well, it didn't take long for that to come true. The Associated Press noted:

The difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They

lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and

are divided on whether to cut money for combat.

I might say the Speaker of the House has already announced her opposition to this new tax plan. Democrats are indeed divided. But for those who are in authority to refuse to move the legislation forward, and who talk about it in terms of it is the best card I have to play, have the ability to stop the funding at the very time that the troops need the money in the field.

Progress in Iraq, obviously, has been widely reported. An editorial today in Investors Business Daily says:

The new strategy being implemented by General Petraeus

seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida has been

backpedaling furiously.

So right at the time the strategy is working, we are going to pull the money out? It makes no sense.

The Washington Post reports today:

The numbers of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians reported

killed across the country last month fell to their lowest

levels in more than a year, a sharp decrease in violent

deaths that American military officials attribute in part to

the thousands of additional soldiers who have arrived here

this year.

And the New York Times today notes:

The number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq dropped

precipitously in September compared with the previous month.

So at a time when the strategy of General Petraeus is working, our friends on the other side of the aisle are deciding to pull the funding so we can no longer continue the operation. That makes no sense at all. But it does fit in with this larger strategy, as I said, to find any way they can to change the course in the war.

Let me conclude with this point. It is now October 3, past the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, and yet the Democratic majority has not passed one single appropriations bill to the President for his signature to fund the government next year. It appears to me there is a reason for this.

The Associated Press noted the following in an article on September 30:

The most basic job of Congress is to pass the bills that

pay the costs of running the government. After criticizing

the Republicans for falling down on the job last year,

Democrats are now the ones stumbling.

And Roll Call had an editorial 3 days before, and I quote from part of it:

Senate Democrats complain that Republican obstructionism

and President Bush's veto threats against nine House-passed

bills caused this year's delay. But the arguments don't hold

water.

Instead, it appears likely that the Democrats' failure to

pass these spending bills is part of the plan designed to

create a giant Omnibus appropriations bill which will

tie very directly into their tax-and-spend policies.

According to an editorial today in Congressional Quarterly:

Democrats may be planning to use a widely supported

veterans' bill as the vehicle for their additional spending.

Frustrated veterans' groups are trying to pressure Congress

to quickly pass a veterans' and military construction bill

and not use it as a vehicle for an omnibus measure.

Now, this wouldn't be the first time this kind of game has been played, but especially if it is on the Veterans and Military Construction bill, or if it is the Defense authorization bill that was held up for so long, and now the measure to try to fund the troops in Iraq, there is a very disturbing pattern here. Playing games with money for veterans and the military in order to get more taxes and spending? That is wrong. It is wrong. The American people need to know that at the very time when General Petraeus's strategy is showing very positive results in Iraq, it is the Democratic plan, at least in the House of Representatives, to hold up that funding, not because there is a lack of money, not because we need a tax increase to fund it but in order to try to change the course of the President's strategy.

That is playing games with the money the troops need in the field. Again, as Senator Domenici said, it is a pretty gutsy move, but in the end, it would not work because you have to feed the soldiers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I understand that we can now begin the 30 minutes of debate running up to the vote on the Graham-Kyl amendment?

Let me start by offering a few comments about why this amendment is important. But, first, to put it into context, we have made a lot of progress. We have come a long way toward securing the border and stopping the problem of illegal entry into our country. But we have a long way to go.

This amendment is designed to continue the progress that we have been making with funding that is necessary for that. Just to put a little context here, for example, in 1994 we had 4,000 Border Patrol agents for the entire border. We now have over 15,000. But we still know there are way too many incursions into the United States and more Border Patrol will help to end that.

We gave the Department of Homeland Security an extra $1.2 billion to pay for those Border Patrol agents, as well as fencing and vehicle barriers, detention space, and the like.

Secretary Chertoff just visited my State of Arizona last week. And he reports in addition to the Border Patrol hiring that I mentioned and the addition of some detention space they are on track to complete 70 miles of fencing by the end of this year. With the additional money this amendment will provide for next year, they will be able to complete at least 371 miles of fencing along the entire Mexican border.

This is not just a fence. Some people say: Well, if you build a 10- foot-high fence, they will come in with an 11-foot ladder. That is a cute refrain, but the reality is, this fencing I have seen built down on the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range just east of Yuma is double fencing. They have to have a very heavy pile driver to drive these steel beams into the ground and attach steel flanges to the side. You cannot get through there. Now lizards and critters can get through, so from an environmental standpoint, it is actually a good thing, but people cannot get through. And, importantly, that, combined with vehicle barriers, which are also large railroad tie-type structures put into the ground to prevent vehicles from coming across, is particularly important because it is the vehicles that bring the drugs. Of course, they can bring larger numbers of immigrants. But the reality is, where you have vehicles, most likely you have weapons and you have drugs. And, of course, where that is involved, you are putting in danger the lives of our Border Patrol and other Federal officers and making it more likely that the value of the contraband coming across is going to be significant, thus driving these smugglers into more desperate measures to protect it.

Violence across the entire southern border has increased significantly. With the double fencing, there is a road in between. And the point of fencing is to slow down those who might find a way to get over the fence. The reality is, with additional vehicles, with additional Border Patrol, and this kind of fencing, what you can create is a situation where, by the time someone may have gotten over the first fence, the sensors and the cameras will have alerted Border Patrol, and they are stationed at close enough intervals that on the road in between, Border Patrol can get to the site and pick up the illegal entrants. So that is why this kind of fencing is so important.

As I said, with the money that is provided in this amendment that is before us right now, we will be able to complete at least 370 miles of fencing along the southern border by the end of next year.

We need additional detention space. In Del Rio, TX, in Yuma, AZ, there are programs already that apprehend illegal immigrants. When they have been apprehended more than once, they are put into detention immediately. Now, about 85 percent of the illegal immigrants just want to come here to work. The other 15 percent are criminals, and some are very serious criminals. You need to detain them.

But it is also helpful to detain those who have come across repeatedly to find work. Why? They cannot afford 60 days in jail where they are not providing for their families. And it is a great incentive for them to decide not to cross the border anymore because if they are going to get put in jail, then they are not going to be able to provide the money to their families that they came across here in the first instance to provide.

So those programs have reduced the immigration in those areas dramatically. But we need more detention spaces for this particular kind of detention. Again, this $3 billion will help to provide that. It can help to provide more prosecutors and public defenders and judges because once you have detention, of course, you also may have criminal trials and you may need to have the entire chain of the criminal justice system funded.

In addition, this funding that we will be providing in this amendment will help to improve the verification system that employers are required to use, the so-called E-Verify system, to make sure it is operating accurately at full capacity.

This is particularly important in my State because, frustrated by the lack of action by the Federal Government to have a good system, our State passed a law that will provide serious sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. But they have to rely on the Federal system to make that determination. It is not, right now, in the best of shape. It needs to be improved. The capacity is there, but the ability to determine valid identity is not. So money in this bill will help to get the Federal system into a position that States could rely on in order to enforce their own State laws against hiring illegal immigrants.

So there is much more that this $3 billion provides. But I wanted to thank my colleague, Senator Graham, for his work in making sure, whether it is on the Department of Homeland Security bill or this bill, we make sure, one way or the other, that we will have the funding to continue to work to secure the border and to make sure that we can stop the illegal immigration into this country that has created so many problems for us.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, my colleague John McCain cannot be here today. He has a statement with respect to the Feingold amendment that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I join my colleague Senator McCain in opposing the amendment and wish to read three paragraphs of his statement, and then the rest of it will be in the Record for all to see:

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by my good

friend, the Senator from Wisconsin.

The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S.

combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops

after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small

force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions.

The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build

on the successes of our new strategy and give General

Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and

support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore

the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to

our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible

consequences that will ensue?

That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though

politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one

direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make

decisions with the security of this great and good nation

foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long

anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and

Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously

that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding

what we now know--that our military is making progress on the

ground, and that their commanders request from us the time

and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable

that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is

beginning to show real results.

Those are the first three paragraphs of the statement from Senator McCain. I join him in opposing the amendment and express his regret at not being able to be here for this debate.

Exhibit 1

Amendment No. 3164 to the DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2008: Cutoff of

Funds for Iraq

(Statement of Senator John McCain, October 3, 2007)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered

by my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin.

The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S.

combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops

after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small

force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions.

The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build

on the successes of our new strategy and give General

Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and

support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore

the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to

our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible

consequences that will ensue?

That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though

politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one

direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make

decisions with the security of this great and good Nation

foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long

anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and

Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously

that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding

what we now know--that our military is making progress on the

ground, and that their commanders request from us the time

and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable

that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is

beginning to show real results.

We see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war,

the situation on the ground in Iraq is showing demonstrable

signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to

implement General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency plan have

been in place for over 3 months and our military, in

cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making

significant gains in a number of areas.

General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during

his testimony in both houses and in countless interviews. The

number two U.S. commander in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, has said

that the seven-and-a-half-month-old security operation has

reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, that car

bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their

lowest level in a year, and that civilian casualties have

dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments

were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who

said that before the surge began, one third of Baghdad's 507

districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said,

``only five to six districts can be called hot areas.''

None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have

suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to

acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence

is still too high and there are many unsafe areas.

Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General

Petraeus' contention that American and Iraqi forces have

achieved substantial progress under their new strategy.

The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and

hard. The Maliki government remains paralyzed and unwilling

to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one

can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We

can be sure, however, that should the United States Congress

succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt

withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more

dangerous course--should we do that, Mr. President, then we

will fail for certain.

Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American

failure in Iraq. Should the Congress force a precipitous

withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the

start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces

unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be

back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to

protect our security and at an even greater cost in American

lives and treasure.

In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in

September, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense

Intelligence Agency report that stated, `` * * * a rapid

withdrawal would result in the further release of strong

centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous

results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi

Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security

initiatives; al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom

of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further

ethnosectarian displacement and refugee flows; and

exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics,

especially with respect to Iran.''

Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous

withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move

will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and

catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action.

Should this amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin

withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or

less stable? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe?

That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever

likelier? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan,

and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal

will somehow make this less likely?

No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the

centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be

no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the

wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Last month,

General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services

Committee and outlined what he believes to be the

consequences of such a course: `` . . . a precipitous

departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he said,

``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists,

jihadists . . . in the world, who will believe that they will

have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is

possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it

will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle

will continue. It will simply be done in different and in

other areas.''

Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of

stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens

and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a

time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons,

training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan

operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts

to bring stability to Iraq. If any of my colleagues remain

unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them

to the recent remarks of

the Iranian president, who said: ``The political power of the

occupiers is collapsing rapidly . . . Soon, we will see a

huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared

to fill the gap.'' If our notions of national security have

any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment

of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider

regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens.

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not

by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on

the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces,

presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out

``operations against al Qaeda and affiliated international

terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false

distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us

think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to

target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian

violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a

terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence?

When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are

they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a

Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or

sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes

across some unknown assailant burying an lED in the road?

Must he check for an al Qaeda identity card before

responding?

The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute

terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are

deeply intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction

between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally

misunderstand al Qaeda's strategy--which is to incite

sectarian violence. Our military commanders say that trying

to artificially separate counterterrorism from

counterinsurgency will not succeed, and that moving in with

search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists,

only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the

failed strategy of the past 4 years. We should not, and must

not, return to such a disastrous course.

The strategy that General Petraeus has put into place--a

traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes

protecting the population, which gets our troops out of the

bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, and

which supplies sufficient force levels to carry out the

mission--that strategy is the correct one. It has become

clear by now that we cannot set a date for withdrawal without

setting a date for surrender.

Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq

alone. It is greater than that and more important still,

about whether America still has the political courage to

fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with

all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk

away gracefully from defeat in this war.

Consider just one final statement from the August National

Intelligence Estimate. It reads:

``We assess that changing the mission of the Coalition

forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization

role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and

counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing

a safehaven would erode any security gains achieved thus

far.''

Should we pass this amendment, we would erode the security

gains that our brave men and women have fought so hard to

achieve and embark on the road of surrender. For the sake of

American interests, our national values, the future of Iraq

and the stability of the Middle East, we must not send our

country down this disastrous course. All of us want our

troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible.

But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor,

the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid

with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to

the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs

all the others, and that is to protect this great and good

Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I urge my

colleagues to vote no on the Feingold amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two amendments to the desk and lay aside the pending business.

The first amendment is No. 3144 and the second one is No. 3145.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

These will be pending separately, not together.

Mr. President, I will be happy to speak. I believe the Senator from Delaware was going to speak. If he wants to speak now, I will be happy to defer to him.

Mr. President, I hope both of these amendments can be worked out, but we haven't been able to work the first one out yet. I will not take very long, but I understood the Senator from Delaware was here and prepared to talk about his amendment. I am happy to defer to him and discuss mine later.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I offered a little bit earlier this afternoon, No. 3144. This amendment has been mischaracterized and, unfortunately, is obviously misunderstood. It happens to be in the missile defense part of the budget. I would be happy to have it included in a different part of the budget if it would make it clearer to people that it is not solely a missile defense program. In fact, in my view, the key value of a space-based test bed is not its ability to enhance missile defense but its unique ability to protect our satellites against a very significant threat posed to them at this time.

My colleague from North Dakota talked about a threatometer-- hypothetical, perhaps, but a rational way to examine prioritization for defense spending. If there is a relatively low-level threat, we might want to set a lower priority in funding to protect against it than a threat that is of higher possibility. By the same token, if almost everything you do in military activity is dependent on one thing and that one thing is vulnerable, you obviously want to protect that one thing. That is the priority we are not attaching to the defense of our satellites in space, which are critical, vital, of immeasurable importance, not just to everything our military does but a great deal of our economic activity as well. It is the ability to defend our space assets from attacks either on the ground or in space that the space- based test bed is significantly designed to do research work on.

Let us understand, the space-based test bed is merely a research tool to understand concepts that are first developed terrestrially on the ground and, if proof of concept is suggested as potentially valuable, lift it into space to see whether it works there as well, to see whether maybe a defensive system can be devised to protect our satellites in space or to provide protection against intercontinental ballistic missile attack and, if so, to have a program developed and designed and then researched and ultimately perhaps produced and finally deployed, all of which is years down the road.

All we are talking about is a proof of concepts basic research program of only $10 million in cost. To have it zeroed out because of some belief that we don't need to spend any more on missile defense misses the point.

Let me go back to what I was talking about. I received a briefing 2 days ago, a highly classified briefing that, frankly, scares me to death. But there is enough we can talk about that is unclassified to make the point. As I said, almost everything we do in military fighting these days in one way or another depends upon our satellites. Our troops communicating with each other, the Air Force dropping a bomb on a precise location, doing intelligence surveillance, the GPS system which is installed in virtually everything we do now--all of these things are reliant on satellites. That is not to mention all the communications and financial transactions and all of the other things we depend upon every day, every communication device--almost every. I shouldn't say ``every,'' but most of the communications devices we have, whether they are used in the military or in our private lives, the means of sending signals to do things back and forth, the airplanes that fly through the sky--we could go on and on about our society's dependence today on communication from satellites. We have to protect those satellites.

There are a lot of ways of attacking them. They are all relatively cheap. It is called asymmetrical warfare because a country that may not be able to beat us on the battlefield with tanks and planes and submarines and so on knows all it has to do is literally pick up the sand and throw it in our eyes and then we can't fight, no matter how big and strong we are. That is what they do if they knock out our satellite system.

How do you do that? There are a lot of different ways. The Chinese recently demonstrated to us a brute force way. They simply sent a missile up and blew up a satellite. They did that to one of

their old weather satellites. It left a lot of debris in the sky. There are laser technologies to lase the satellite, which can be done from the ground but more effectively, if you can, from space because there you don't have the air disruptions to divert the laser beam. You have directed energy. You have radio kinds of jamming or electronic jamming. This can be done either from the Earth or in the sky or, frankly, from space. Doesn't it make sense for us to have the capability to stop the destruction of our satellite system on the first day of a war where we rely upon all of that to do what we need to do?

Let me take a hypothetical. I don't mean to disparage any particular nation by engaging in a little bit of hypothetical war-gaming here, but it has been no secret that the Chinese Government would like to see Taiwan reunited, in their view--in any event, brought within the Chinese Government sphere. Both the Chinese military and the American military, as well as the Japanese and Taiwanese and others, have developed weaponry that would be useful in any kind of conflict that might evolve in that situation. But it is very clear that the Chinese have thought about how to keep the United States out of such a war for at least 2 or 3 days, giving them the time they would need to actually take over Taiwan. How do you do that? Well, we won't discuss all the ways it could be done, but the Chinese have developed certain weapons that would be problematic for the United States to deal with, one of which is an ability to attack our electronics and our satellites. Right now, we have very little in the way of defense against that. What the space-based test bed concept would do is begin to give us an understanding of what might be possible for part of that defense.

That is not the end of it. We still would have to protect against something like a jammer from the Earth or perhaps a laser from the Earth. But to the extent that a missile launched from the Earth against one of our satellites would pose a threat, space-based test bed research might be able to find a way to stop that. To the extent that it is a Chinese satellite in space, for example, we might be able to find a way to stop it.

It seems to me to make no sense to say that on a threat which may not be the most likely threat in the case of everyday happening but which would be absolutely devastatingly destructive if it ever happened--and it is not hard to postulate a situation in which it could happen--to say we are not going to spend any money on defending our satellites makes no sense to me.

I have heard that one of the reasons some groups are opposed to this is their fear that somehow or other we are going to weaponize space. Let's deal with that right now. First, an intercontinental ballistic missile against the United States or against one of our satellites is a weapon in space. We are not weaponizing space if we try to defend against that. That is a ludicrous argument. We wait until somebody else fires an ICBM against us and then we decide we better defend against that, and if we can somehow get something up into the atmosphere, well, that is a weapon in space, but it is probably a pretty good idea to stop their weapon in space. If we send up an interceptor missile, that is a weapon in space.

Suppose the Chinese decide, instead of destroying one of their weather satellites, they are going to destroy some of our satellites that provide the means of communication and the means of directing weapons and the means of identifying the battlefield and of surveilling it, they are going to destroy some of our satellites by sending up a missile that has already destroyed one of theirs, so it is clearly capable of doing so. Let's say we have found that we can, by using this test bed, provide maneuverability of our satellite so it can move out of the way, or we have found that we can actually add to it a defensive kind of laser or a defensive kind of jamming device that prevents the Chinese missile from actually hitting or destroying the satellite. Why wouldn't we want to do that even if it has some kind of a little steel ball in it that--because of the vacuum in space, it doesn't take a lot of force to get something moving at a very high rate of speed. You could eject that steel ball and have it intercept a missile that is coming up toward the satellite in order to destroy the missile before it can destroy our satellite. What is wrong with thinking about solving the problem?

We are not talking about developing anything. We are not talking about deploying anything. In fact, before you even do more research in space, it would have to be confirmed in concept on the ground. Is there such a fear of defending ourselves that we don't even want to think about how to do it in a situation where it would be critical to an attack against us? I don't understand the argument against this.

Let me make a couple other points. The deputy commander of STRATCOM said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last year:

Space capabilities have revolutionized the way we fight

today.

He went on to describe a variety of ways in which this is true. I have talked about some of them. I have noted that in the civil sphere, satellites enable our ATMs, the financial markets, our truck fleet management. I just met with the CEO of the largest trucking company in the United States, Swift Trucking. He said they have GPS satellite on every one of their trucks. They can tell exactly where every one of their trucks is at any given time, and this enables them to manage their fuel mileage so they are environmentally good. They don't exceed the speed limit. They can get them to the destination by the shortest route. All of this is done by satellite, as are credit card validations. Our first responders rely significantly on this. The next generation of air traffic control, I mentioned before. I could go on and on.

The general's point is that it is not just in military activity but our civilian life as well. But he makes the point that with regard to the military, loss of our space capabilities would be devastating to our military.

I mentioned China, but countries such as Iran and Libya have also attacked satellites in recent years, as have other countries. I mentioned jamming, direct descent antisatellite weapons, directed energy, laser weapons--all of these have been proven, at least conceptually. Over 20 nations now have ballistic missiles, and under the right circumstances, these can destroy satellites. They can also come through the atmosphere carrying a weapon and blow it up over American soil or they can create an electromagnetic pulse explosion in the atmosphere which would also explode electronics. Since the year 2002, there have been an average of 90 foreign ballistic missile launches per year. Last year, there were 100. This is not a theoretical concept; this is a capability many countries have and have tested.

Obviously, if we are trying to defend against a ballistic missile threat, having some capability in space could be very helpful. We would have to have the debate about weaponizing space at a future time, if a proof of concept through the space-based test bed were ever developed. That is a fight we could have. I would be happy at that point to engage my colleague, who has talked a little bit about that political issue, but it is very premature to talk about that in the context of what we are trying to do here today.

I mentioned the Iranians. They have a Shahab-3 missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers and another one with a range of 1,900 kilometers. According to our intelligence community, they could have long-range capability in just a few more years. This could evolve into any of the kinds of threats I just mentioned a little bit ago.

So what this space bed does is explore the survivability, affordability, the deployability, and the operability of the different types of capabilities that could be based in space. As I said, it begins with the terrestrial proof-of-concept stage that would take several years to complete. It would be years before orbital testing would even be considered, and the Congress will have all of that time to debate whether we want to move forward with any of these things. But at least we would be doing so with knowledge, with facts, with data, and not merely speculation.

Some fear that in one way or another the program might morph into something we do not want it to morph into. We cannot engage in that informed debate today. What this program would do is enable us to engage in that informed debate.

After one more comment, I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record dated July 6 of this year by GEN Henry Obering that talks about the need for the space test bed and describes at least what its capabilities would be, at least in the context of missile defense.

The last thing I want to do is I want to go back to the Chinese because they are among the countries that have demonstrated the most interest in taking out our satellites.

A Chinese military analyst recently wrote that space is ``the U.S. Military's `Soft Ribs', A Strategic Weakness'' and that ``for countries that can never win a war with the U.S. by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice.''

We already cut significant parts of our space program. The space tracking and surveillance satellites were cut $55 million under the SASC bill and $59 million by the Armed Services Committee bill. There is a classified program that exists that was further cut, and the Defense Department's Space Radar Program was cut significantly. The defense committee cut $200 million from the TSAT Program, which is a communications satellite for military communications traffic.

But General Obering has said the space test bed ``is a proving ground for concepts and integrated technologies. . . . Exploration of alternative implementation architectures is a critical part of the Space Test Bed. . . . Ultimately, policymakers will decide to deploy or not. However, the policy debate would be greatly improved if informed by a quantitative understanding of the issues. The Space Test Bed will provide essential decision support.''

So that is why we should not zero out this program. A very modest $10 million investment could help us begin a process of deciding whether concepts are worth pursuing. Given the fact that our satellites are almost absolutely vulnerable to a variety of different kinds of attacks, I ask whether my colleagues are willing to vote against a mere $10 million to begin the basic research to see whether there are not some ways we might want to eventually pursue to protect those satellites.

I hope my colleagues will seriously consider this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I wish to respond to four quick points made in reference to my amendment, which is amendment No. 3144. First, the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Hawaii, said we have funded many space programs, and he mentioned the Space Tracking and Surveillance System and Space Situational Awareness Programs. That is true, except that they cut $55 million out of the STSS Program. The key point is that those are situational awareness and tracking programs, not defensive programs. There is zero in here for the defense space test research program. That is what I am talking about--not situational awareness and tracking but an actual Defense research program.

Secondly, the Senator from North Dakota first responded to my argument and the fact that I had quoted General Obering's support by saying he is not surprised that the Kyl amendment is supported by a general, that they usually are because their careers depend upon programs. Frankly, I am astounded by this ad hominem attack. Let's attack the substance of the program, not the general who supports it. We cannot trust our generals? Is that what is being said? We ask them to devise ways of protecting us from attack, and that is the thanks they get.

Let's turn to the substance of the argument. Two primary points were made by the Senator from North Dakota. First of all, because the space- based test bed program could evolve into a space-based missile defense, regardless of its other benefits for satellite protection, we should not fund the program. Well, my first reaction is, God forbid that we would develop a program to defend us from intercontinental ballistic missiles. We would not want to do that. Of course, the point is there are years of decisionmaking between the time that a space-based test bed program evolves into concepts and potential programs and the research evolves into specific proposals and the time that the Senate would ever vote on them.

Does the Senator have such a lack of confidence in his ability to stop such a horrible thing--space-based defenses--that he is not even willing to allow a program to be funded to develop conceptual programs to defend our satellites in space, which presumably we all favor?

Finally, the last argument was, well, the nations of the world would be better to get together and have an agreement not to develop weapons in space. There are two answers to that. First of all, what is a Chinese missile flying through space to hit a satellite called? That is what they did. As the Senator from Florida and I discussed the other day, that they left a lot of space debris is a problem in the wake of that attack. What is a missile flying through space to hit another country's satellite called? Is that a weapon in space? Are we so afraid of defending our satellite assets that we don't want to defend against a satellite killer missile from a country coming up from the ground into space that hits our satellite? Would we not want to defend it from space?

That is a ludicrous argument. I don't believe we are going to get the countries of the world together to join in a treaty to have them forget programs

that they have already been developing--the Chinese in this particular case--because they want to have an asymmetric way of destroying our satellites.

The bottom line is this: The United States better get serious about defending our eyes and ears in space and now the satellites that direct so much of our military activity. Other countries have the ability to turn off the light. They know where the switch is. In times of war, we cannot be blind and deaf and be denied our space assets. And yet virtually by turning off the switch, other countries have that capability. Isn't it about time we begin the first steps of developing a capability against that?

I note, by the way, that the $10 million program out of a budget for missile defense of over $8 billion is hardly enough to color general Obering's claims that this would be a good program for us to begin research on.

I hope my colleagues, when this amendment is voted on, will think about the future, will think about the fact that they have plenty of opportunities to stop a program should it ever evolve into a space- based missile defense program. If they want to stop that, stop that, but don't use that as an argument to stop research on a satellite protection program.

Madam President, I was going to suggest that, and I appreciate the Senator's comments. I am aware of the situational awareness programs. The point I was trying to make earlier in response to the distinguished chairman of the committee is this is not a situational awareness program. This is a program that could actually result in the development of defenses for our satellites, a lot of different potential concepts.

The concepts that would protect the satellites from space, of course, are different potentially from the concepts that would protect them from the ground.

I am happy to have a different line in the budget, if that is going to solve the problem. But what I don't want to do is to have the money allocated simply for tracking or surveillance or situational awareness as opposed to researching development of potential defenses.

I wonder if my colleague will respond.

Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator, part of defending a satellite against an attack is being aware the attack is pending, is about to happen, or is happening. But if all you know is that I am being attacked and you are not capable of defending yourself, the knowledge you are being attacked is of little use. So this is not a matter of surveillance or situational awareness; it is a matter of developing defenses.

I guess I would put this question to my colleague: As an abstract principle, would my colleague favor or oppose the concept of a space- based defense of satellites of the United States that have military uses, in other words, a defense that would be perhaps based on the satellite itself to jam signals as some weapon homes in or that would create some kind of effective shield of electromagnetic pulse or other kind of electronic defense or even a kinetic kind of defense for the satellite if it is under attack, perhaps some kind of shielding against a laser attack? In other words, all different kinds of attacks that might come.

As a hypothetical matter, would my colleague not agree that it would be very useful and appropriate, even if those defensive capabilities are located in space, for us to be able to protect our satellites in that way or would my colleague consider those to be space-based weapons that are impermissible?

Madam President, let me say, first, I am aware of what is being done to protect our assets, and we don't, as has been said before on the floor of this Chamber, have defenses for our satellites in space today by an attack by another country. We have to work in this area. The space-based test bed is one of the places in which we could develop proof of concept that could be effective both for our satellites and, yes, also for an attack by a hostile missile because that is where this program started, it is in the missile defense budget. But that doesn't mean if I drop this amendment, for example, as the Senator is suggesting I do, that, therefore, we can forget about the need to protect our satellites because everything is taken care of. We have a need to develop concepts which include the ability to test, first, terrestrially and then in space, proof of concept that would provide for defenses, that would both protect satellites and protect against a hostile missile attack.

For the life of me, I don't see why my colleague can so confidently predict that my amendment will not have the votes to be adopted simply because on down the road many years from now it is theoretically possible that a concept would be developed to protect against a hostile missile attack with some kind of a space-based program.

Mr. President, on Monday, GEN Peter Pace completed his term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A highly decorated officer, GEN Peter Pace was the first Marine officer to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in our Nation's history.

General Pace graduated the U.S. Naval Academy in 1967. After completing the Basic School in 1968, he deployed to Vietnam as a marine rifle platoon commander. After Vietnam, General Pace served overseas in Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and Somalia.

His style as a humble commander, selflessly dedicated to his obligations, brought accolades from both superior officers and enlisted soldiers. General Pace has held command at nearly every level, and excelled in all respects in the uniformed service of his country.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace served as an adviser to the President a role he conducted with unquestionable professionalism. As a confidential advisor and military man, General Pace did his utmost to steer clear of the public disputes and political battles that so often afflict Washington decisionmaking.

General Pace's professional conduct, through a period of time marked by new and uniquely difficult tribulations, is a model for those to come. A strong voice for providing security to Iraq's population and holding areas cleared of terrorists, General Pace's counsel has played a role in building consensus for the military strategy that is producing successes on the ground in Iraq. It should be noted that General Pace assumed his duties in the face of a rising insurgency in Iraq. He leaves office with a successful strategy in place, an improving situation in Iraq, and troop draw downs taking place due to progress on the ground. In short, he has left his office in better condition than it was when he entered it. For his exemplary service he has earned the gratitude of a safer, more secure Nation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by noting that, along with my colleagues, I support reauthorization of SCHIP. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate today is not just an SCHIP reauthorization; it is an SCHIP expansion, based on the following misguided principles:

First, it would turn a program for low-income children into a program for adults as well.

Second, it expands SCHIP to cover children from higher income families.

Third, it covers people already insured, not just the uninsured.

Fourth, it circumvents budget rules to hide a $41 billion cost not paid for under the bill.

I will address the first issue. When we authorized this program in 1997, the Republican-led Congress intended SCHIP to provide health coverage to low-income, uninsured children. Ten years later, the program created for children covers adults.

In fiscal year 2006, 14 States enrolled over 700,000 adults in SCHIP. In fact,

this year, 13 percent of SCHIP funds will go to adults other than pregnant women. For example, Wisconsin covers almost twice as many adults as children under the SCHIP program, spending 76 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. Illinois spends 62 percent on adults. Rhode Island spends 54 percent on adults. New Jersey spends half of its money on adults.

So what happens under the bill before us? It allows the States, with these existing waivers, to continue enrolling new parents--adults, obviously--at a higher reimbursement rate than Medicaid.

There is no ``a'' in SCHIP. If Congress created SCHIP for low-income children, we in Congress should ensure that is where the funds go; otherwise, we are being dishonest with the American people and we should rename the program.

Second, when the program was created, in 1997, we targeted low-income children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to obtain private health insurance. We never intended for all children, regardless of the income of their families, to become dependent on a Government health insurance program. That is not what is happening today.

Eleven States have income thresholds at or above 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. Rather than refocusing SCHIP on low-income children, nothing in the bill prohibits States from increasing eligibility levels above 300 percent of the Federal poverty level.

In fact, the bill grandfathers in the two States with the Nation's highest levels and at a higher reimbursement rate than the rest of the country. Why should Arizonans, my constituents, pay their taxpayer dollars, which are intended for low-income children, to be sent to New York and New Jersey to cover families earning up to $82,600 a year?

I have heard some say over and over again this will only happen if the administration allows it. That is not true.

First, I direct my colleagues' attention to page 82, lines 3 through 11 of the bill. It states there is an exception for any State with an approved State plan amendment or waiver--that is New Jersey--or a State that has enacted a State law--that is New York. There is an exception. So it is not that the President can stop this. The bill provides the exception.

To clarify the policy even further, page 82 includes new language that was not in the Senate-passed bill. This new language reinforces that States should have the flexibility to set their own income eligibility levels, no matter how high, making it nearly impossible for any administration to reject such State requests.

Third, very importantly, the bill guts an August 17 letter issued by the administration designed to make sure that States enroll low-income families first and foremost. They said you have to make sure 95 percent of your low-income, eligible kids are enrolled in the SCHIP program before you can expand it to cover the higher income families. Well, that has been taken out of the bill and the bill guts the provision.

From my analysis, nothing in this bill gives the administration the clear authority to prevent taxpayer dollars from being sent to higher income families. Even the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group, warns that the bill ``fails to target new entitlement spending at those most in need.''

Third, as a result of expanding SCHIP to children from higher income families and some adults, the bill ``crowds out'' private health insurance and substitutes that coverage with government-run, taxpayer- subsidized insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2 million people will drop their private coverage under this bill. For every two individuals added to SCHIP, or Medicaid Program, one drops private coverage. This is why we say it is a step toward government-run health care--you take people with good private health insurance and take them off of the private health insurance roll and substitute in the government health insurance program.

For the newly eligible populations--the people not yet enrolled in the program--CBO shows a one-for-one replacement, meaning that for each 600,000 newly insured individuals, 600,000 individuals go off of private coverage. Is that what we are all about, what we should be doing here? Should Congress not focus on ways to provide health care coverage to the uninsured, rather than to those who already have insurance? Of course, the answer is yes.

Finally, the SCHIP bill is not paid for. Under our rules, we are required to state the cost of a program such as this over 10 years and pay for it over that time period. Under the bill, SCHIP spending goes up every year for 5 years and, all of a sudden, magically, artificially, the spending drops off precipitously, as if there is no more need for it. It basically disappears. Obviously, the reason for that is to circumvent the budget rules and avoid paying for the bill. The assumption, obviously, is artificial and wrong and everybody knows it. The program is, in fact, going to continue out over the full 10 years; it doesn't stop after 5. So you need to make up the last 5 years.

How much does that cost? According to the CBO, $41 billion will be needed to sustain the program for the last 5 years of the 10-year program. In other words, the bill has in it a $41 billion hole. If you fill in that hole over the course of the 10 years, the cost of the bill exceeds $110 billion. That is why some of us appreciate the President's determination to veto the bill as too much spending on a program that has been expanded way beyond its original purpose and is substituting private health insurance coverage for a new government program.

A future Congress will have no other choice than to disenroll millions of children, which will not happen, or more likely, raise taxes to fill that $110 billion cost. Of course, it will be our children who will bear this bill's deficit.

I will conclude where I started. Like everybody else in the Chamber, I support the reauthorization of SCHIP. I don't support its expansion in the way it has been done under this bill. Republicans have offered a fiscally responsible alternative that reauthorizes SCHIP for 5 years, preserving health care coverage for millions of low-income children. It adds 1.3 million new children to SCHIP. It is offset without new taxes or budget gimmicks. It minimizes the reduction in private health coverage by targeting it to low-income children.

We should pass an SCHIP extension and we should work toward a reauthorization, such as the Republican alternative, that is fiscally responsible and upholds SCHIP's original intent. Doing so is a step toward renewing our commitment to America's children.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make an observation and thank all the people who were involved in this effort. For our colleagues who might be listening, the reason there is an agreement and there will be no objection is because people on both sides of the aisle were willing to make some concessions to the others with regard to the wording of these two resolutions. I would hope they would be both strongly supported.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I am checking to see if there is anybody on our side who wishes to speak for any amount of time.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to speak to two items that are before us as we are considering the Defense authorization bill this morning. The first has to do with an amendment that has been offered by Senator Lieberman and myself and others to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, which would, if we do that, permit us to engage in economic sanction activity against the financing operations of the IRGC.

That is important, because according to all of the evidence we have, it is the IRGC that has been primarily responsible for the infusion into Iraq of the very dangerous equipment that has been causing great harm to our troops there, especially the new superpenetrator devices that are blowing up not just humvees but also even Abrams tanks.

It is the IRGC that is responsible for the training of Iraqis to be fighting our troops in Iraq and generally bringing the Iranian Government's anti-American activities from Iran into Iraq.

It is because of the IRGC's activities as a terrorist organization that our troops are dying in portions of Iraq today and, therefore, totally fitting for us to express our sense to the administration that it should designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, thus, permitting us to invoke these economic sanctions against it.

The IRGC, interestingly enough, engages in a great deal of financial activity around the world, which makes these particular sanctions especially appropriate and potentially very effective. I am pleased it appears there will be an agreement on some slight modifications of language of the amendment which will permit us to, presumably, have a near unanimous vote when this amendment is considered, perhaps later this morning but certainly today.

I am looking forward to a colloquy with Senator Levin and Senator

Lieberman so we can discuss our joint understanding of precisely what this joint resolution means and be able to act upon it so we can send a very clear message to the Iranian Government that its involvement against U.S. troops in Iraq will not be countenanced.

That is especially poignant today after the appearance by the Iranian President at a major U.S. university and his appearance today at the United Nations, in which it is pretty clear he will say just about anything to advance what he believes is the cause animating Iran's activities in the world today, whether it is truthful or not.

It seems to me, until there is a firm push back against this man and against the regime which he runs and the terrorist arm of that regime, the IRGC, they are going to continue to do what they do. And that is why it is especially poignant today, as I said, that the Senate act on this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

The other matter I wish to briefly talk about is another amendment that is pending before us offered by the Senator from Delaware. This is an amendment that contains several preamble statements about the situation in Iraq, and then calls upon the Iraqi Government to convene a council which will result in the creation of federal regions within Iraq.

This is something the Iraqi Constitution and a special law that was passed permit but does not mandate. It seems to me it would be a very big mistake on the part of the U.S. Government to be seen as demanding that the Iraqi Government take this step, which some would see as a breaking apart of the nation of Iraq, a partitioning of the country of Iraq into different pieces.

The people of Iraq have the authority to do that under this special law and under their Constitution. They fully have intended to have some kind of a conference to consider whether to do it. But I think it would be a big mistake for us to be seen as dictating to the Iraqi people how they want their Government ultimately to be governed, to exist, and to operate.

The creation of federal regions may be an appropriate way for them to do this; it may not. But that decision should be left to them. I think there has been an assumption that at least one federal region in the Kurdish north would be recognized, but there are questions about whether other federal regions would be.

I recognize there are some in the United States, and even in this body, who believe it would be best for Iraq if it were divided into federal regions. Maybe they are right; maybe they are not right. But it is clearly up to the Iraqi people to make this decision.

So were we to express ourselves on this, I think it would also be important for us to confirm our understanding and belief and commitment to the sovereignty of the people of Iraq to make this decision, and to make it clear nothing in this particular resolution in any way is intended to undercut the sovereignty of the Iraqi people to make this decision for themselves. Otherwise, I fear the resolution could be read as the United States dictating to the Iraqis what their country is going to look like in the future and especially because it relates to the partitioning of the country. It seems to me this would be a very arrogant step on our part and something that obviously we do not want to be seen as doing.

I also would make the point that some of the recitations at the beginning of this resolution are misleading, if not outright wrong. It talks about the sectarian violence in the country. There is sectarian violence, but it totally ignores the activities of al-Qaida. Since al- Qaida has spawned much of the sectarian violence, it seems to me this is an incredibly important omission, especially because there are some in this body who talk about a change in mission, eventually having our mission in Iraq evolve to simply a counterterrorism mission, recognizing that al-Qaida is a significant force in the country, and we need to deal with al-Qaida.

We have al-Qaida on the run in the country, but al-Qaida is not gone by any means. In addition to that, al-Qaida spawns some of the sectarian violence as, for example, it did when it blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra, thus inciting Shiites to attack Sunnis and starting a cycle of violence which continues to this day.

To simply refer to sectarian violence without any reference to the terrorism that is occurring because of al-Qaida would, I think, be a glaring omission and would raise significant questions. Especially if there are those who suggest we should eliminate a message of counterinsurgency, this is also totally contradictory because if you refer to all of the violence in the country as sectarian violence, but there is no counterinsurgency mission for the United States, then basically what you are saying is we simply leave that country to the tender mercies of all those groups engaged in this sectarian violence. That, we know, is antithetical to any kind of peaceful resolution to the disagreements that exist in that country and the eventual reconciliation of the people of that country.

So it seems to me a resolution of this type can do more harm than good in creating confusion about what the understanding of the United States of the situation in the country is, No. 1; No. 2, failing to recognize the prominent role that al-Qaida is playing and the importance of our mission in dealing with al-Qaida; and, third, suggesting it is the position of the United States to dictate to the Iraqi people that they need to partition their country when, in fact, that is a decision that needs to be left to them, which they could make if they wanted to under their Constitution, but certainly are not required to, and nothing we do should suggest we would require them to do so. We have to recognize the sovereignty of that country.

The final point I wish to make is simply this: We have been on the Defense authorization bill now for 2 weeks--14 days. We were on it for many days a couple months ago, until the bill was pulled. There has been a lot of criticism, especially by my colleague, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, who has made the point that the time is long past that we should have passed this Defense authorization bill, which contains so many important elements for our troops--the pay raise for the troops, the wounded warrior legislation, and other important elements that are critical for our Armed Services.

For us to continue to simply use this bill as a vehicle to deal with endless resolutions dealing with Iraq--I gather there are a couple more that are on the way--is a misuse of the legislative process and of this important piece of legislation.

So I hope my colleagues would conclude one of these days that we have to pass the Defense authorization bill for the good of the troops and stop this endless debate about trying to change our policy or missions in Iraq. We have had that debate over and over and over again. We are going to have it again in the future. But let's not let it dominate everything we do in this body. I hope we can get on to the final passage on the Defense authorization bill soon.

I yield the floor.